Hong Kong, China vs Singapore: Starting a business: Procedures required - Men (number) - Score
Hong Kong, China
94.12
in 2019
Singapore
94.12
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
3rd
Singapore rank
3rd
Starting a business: Procedures required - Men (number) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Singapore
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 94.12 against 94.12 in Singapore, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 3rd and Singapore ranks 3rd of 191 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Singapore | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 78.15 | 73.95 | 4.2 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 91.18 | 89.41 | 1.76 | Hong Kong, China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: procedures required - men (number) - score, Hong Kong, China or Singapore?
- Hong Kong, China, at 94.12 against 94.12 in Singapore as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: procedures required - men (number) - score between Hong Kong, China and Singapore?
- 0, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Singapore?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Singapore rank globally for starting a business: procedures required - men (number) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 3rd and Singapore ranks 3rd of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Procedures required - Men (number) - 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 number of procedures for men benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.