Mauritania vs United Kingdom: Starting a business: Procedures required - Women (number) - Score
Mauritania
82.35
in 2019
United Kingdom
82.35
in 2019
Mauritania rank
27th
United Kingdom rank
27th
Starting a business: Procedures required - Women (number) - Score over time
- Mauritania
- United Kingdom
How they compare
Mauritania currently reports 82.35 against 82.35 in United Kingdom, a difference of 0.
Across all 17 years both countries report, United Kingdom has been ahead every year.
Mauritania ranks 27th and United Kingdom ranks 27th of 191 countries.
United Kingdom has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mauritania | United Kingdom | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 44.54 | 70.59 | 26.05 | United Kingdom |
| 2010s | 65.29 | 76.47 | 11.18 | United Kingdom |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: procedures required - women (number) - score, Mauritania or United Kingdom?
- Mauritania, at 82.35 against 82.35 in United Kingdom as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: procedures required - women (number) - score between Mauritania and United Kingdom?
- 0, with Mauritania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritania and United Kingdom?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Mauritania and United Kingdom rank globally for starting a business: procedures required - women (number) - score?
- Mauritania ranks 27th and United Kingdom ranks 27th 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.