Latvia vs Namibia: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time
- Latvia
- Namibia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 5.5 DB16-20 methodology against 5 DB16-20 methodology in Namibia, a difference of 0.5 DB16-20 methodology.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.1 times Namibia's.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.
Latvia ranks 1st and Namibia ranks 4th of 188 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Latvia or Namibia?
- Latvia, 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 Latvia and Namibia?
- 0.5 DB16-20 methodology, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Namibia?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Latvia and Namibia rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Latvia 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.