Eswatini vs Indonesia: Starting a business: Procedures required - Women (number) - Score
Eswatini
35.29
in 2019
Indonesia
39.88
in 2019
Eswatini rank
180th
Indonesia rank
179th
Starting a business: Procedures required - Women (number) - Score over time
- Eswatini
- Indonesia
How they compare
Indonesia currently reports 39.88 against 35.29 in Eswatini, a difference of 4.59.
That makes Indonesia's figure about 1.1 times Eswatini's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Eswatini ahead.
Eswatini ranks 180th and Indonesia ranks 179th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Eswatini averaged higher in 1 and Indonesia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini | Indonesia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 35.29 | 27.06 | 8.24 | Eswatini |
| 2010s | 35.29 | 35.95 | 0.6589 | Indonesia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: procedures required - women (number) - score, Eswatini or Indonesia?
- Indonesia, at 39.88 against 35.29 in Eswatini as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: procedures required - women (number) - score between Eswatini and Indonesia?
- 4.59, with Indonesia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Indonesia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Eswatini and Indonesia rank globally for starting a business: procedures required - women (number) - score?
- Eswatini ranks 180th and Indonesia ranks 179th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Procedures required - Women (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 women 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.