Hong Kong vs South Africa: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time
- Hong Kong
- South Africa
How they compare
Hong Kong currently reports 2 DB16-20 methodology against 2 DB16-20 methodology in South Africa, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, South Africa has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong ranks 74th and South Africa ranks 74th of 191 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Hong Kong or South Africa?
- Hong Kong, at 2 DB16-20 methodology against 2 DB16-20 methodology in South Africa as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Hong Kong and South Africa?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Hong Kong ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and South Africa?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong and South Africa rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Hong Kong ranks 74th and South Africa ranks 74th of 191 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.