Australia vs Namibia: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time
- Australia
- Namibia
How they compare
Australia currently reports 5.5 DB16-20 methodology against 5 DB16-20 methodology in Namibia, a difference of 0.5 DB16-20 methodology.
That makes Australia's figure about 1.1 times Namibia's.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.
Australia ranks 1st and Namibia ranks 4th of 188 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Australia or Namibia?
- Australia, at 5.5 DB16-20 methodology against 5 DB16-20 methodology in Namibia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Australia and Namibia?
- 0.5 DB16-20 methodology, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Namibia?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Australia and Namibia rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Australia ranks 1st and Namibia ranks 4th of 188 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.