Hong Kong vs Samoa: Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3)
Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) over time
- Hong Kong
- Samoa
How they compare
Hong Kong currently reports 2.5 DB16-20 methodology against 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in Samoa, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Samoa has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong ranks 19th and Samoa ranks 19th of 190 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3), Hong Kong or Samoa?
- Hong Kong, at 2.5 DB16-20 methodology against 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in Samoa as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) between Hong Kong and Samoa?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Hong Kong ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Samoa?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong and Samoa rank globally for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3)?
- Hong Kong ranks 19th and Samoa ranks 19th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The alternative dispute resolution evaluates two aspects: (i) whether domestic commercial arbitration is regulated by law, all disputes can be submitted to arbitration and valid arbitration clauses are usually enforced by courts; and (ii) whether voluntary mediation and/or conciliation are a recognized way of resolving commercial disputes, they are regulated by law and there are financial incentives for parties to attempt mediation of conciliation. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.