Papua New Guinea vs Poland: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Poland
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 1.5 DB16-20 methodology against 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in Poland, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Poland has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 95th and Poland ranks 95th of 188 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Papua New Guinea or Poland?
- Papua New Guinea, at 1.5 DB16-20 methodology against 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in Poland as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Papua New Guinea and Poland?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Poland?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Poland rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 95th and Poland ranks 95th 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.