Papua New Guinea vs Sao Tome and Principe: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)

Papua New Guinea
1.5 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe
1.5 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Papua New Guinea rank
97th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
97th

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

  • Papua New Guinea
  • Sao Tome and Principe
00.511.5201520172019

How they compare

Papua New Guinea currently reports 1.5 DB16-20 methodology against 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.

Across all 5 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.

Papua New Guinea ranks 97th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 97th of 191 countries.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Papua New Guinea or Sao Tome and Principe?
Papua New Guinea, at 1.5 DB16-20 methodology against 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Papua New Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
0 DB16-20 methodology, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Papua New Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
Papua New Guinea ranks 97th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 97th 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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Papua New Guinea vs Sao Tome and Principe: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6). Statizoid. Retrieved 29 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/enforcing-contracts-case-management-0-6-db16-20-methodology/papua-new-guinea/sao-tome-and-principe/

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/papua-new-guinea/sao-tome-and-principe/">Papua New Guinea vs Sao Tome and Principe: 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
191 places, 955 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.