Mauritania vs Micronesia (country): Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)

Mauritania
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Micronesia (country)
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Mauritania rank
114th
Micronesia (country) rank
114th

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

  • Mauritania
  • Micronesia (country)
00.20.40.60.81201520172019

How they compare

Mauritania currently reports 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Micronesia (country), a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.

Across all 5 years both countries report, Micronesia (country) has been ahead every year.

Mauritania ranks 114th and Micronesia (country) ranks 114th of 188 countries.

Micronesia (country) has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Mauritania or Micronesia (country)?
Mauritania, at 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Micronesia (country) as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Mauritania and Micronesia (country)?
0 DB16-20 methodology, with Mauritania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritania and Micronesia (country)?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Mauritania and Micronesia (country) rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
Mauritania ranks 114th and Micronesia (country) ranks 114th 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.