Hong Kong, China vs Marshall Islands: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)

Hong Kong, China
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Marshall Islands
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
73rd
Marshall Islands rank
73rd

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

  • Hong Kong, China
  • Marshall Islands
00.511.52201520172019

How they compare

Hong Kong, China currently reports 2 DB16-20 methodology against 2 DB16-20 methodology in Marshall Islands, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.

Across all 5 years both countries report, Marshall Islands has been ahead every year.

Hong Kong, China ranks 73rd and Marshall Islands ranks 73rd of 190 countries.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Hong Kong, China or Marshall Islands?
Hong Kong, China, at 2 DB16-20 methodology against 2 DB16-20 methodology in Marshall Islands as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Hong Kong, China and Marshall Islands?
0 DB16-20 methodology, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Marshall Islands?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Hong Kong, China and Marshall Islands rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
Hong Kong, China ranks 73rd and Marshall Islands ranks 73rd of 190 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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Hong Kong, China vs Marshall Islands: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6). Statizoid. Retrieved 19 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/enforcing-contracts-case-management-0-6-db16-20-methodology/hong-kong-sar-china/marshall-islands/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/enforcing-contracts-case-management-0-6-db16-20-methodology/hong-kong-sar-china/marshall-islands/">Hong Kong, China vs Marshall Islands: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)</a> — Statizoid

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.