Papua New Guinea vs Saudi Arabia: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Papua New Guinea
100.0%
in 2019
Saudi Arabia
100.0%
in 2019
Papua New Guinea rank
1st
Saudi Arabia rank
1st
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Saudi Arabia
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 100.0% against 100.0% in Saudi Arabia, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Papua New Guinea ranks 1st and Saudi Arabia ranks 1st of 191 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Saudi Arabia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 100.0% | 42.9% | 57.1% | Papua New Guinea |
| 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), Papua New Guinea or Saudi Arabia?
- Papua New Guinea, at 100.0% against 100.0% in Saudi Arabia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia?
- 0.0%, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 1st and Saudi Arabia 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.