Belarus vs Indonesia: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)

Belarus
2.5 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Indonesia
2.78 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Belarus rank
64th
Indonesia rank
63rd

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time

  • Belarus
  • Indonesia
0123201520172019

How they compare

Indonesia currently reports 2.78 DB16-20 methodology against 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in Belarus, a difference of 0.28 DB16-20 methodology.

That makes Indonesia's figure about 1.1 times Belarus's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Belarus ahead.

Belarus ranks 64th and Indonesia ranks 63rd of 188 countries.

Belarus has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Belarus or Indonesia?
Indonesia, at 2.78 DB16-20 methodology against 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in Belarus as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Belarus and Indonesia?
0.28 DB16-20 methodology, with Indonesia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Indonesia?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Belarus and Indonesia rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
Belarus ranks 64th and Indonesia ranks 63rd 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

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

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.