Central African Republic vs Zimbabwe: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- Central African Republic
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Central African Republic currently reports 7.9% against 6.6% in Zimbabwe, a difference of 1.3%.
That makes Central African Republic's figure about 1.2 times Zimbabwe's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Zimbabwe ahead.
Central African Republic ranks 186th and Zimbabwe ranks 187th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Central African Republic averaged higher in 1 and Zimbabwe in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Central African Republic | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 7.9% | 64.1% | 56.2% | Zimbabwe |
| 2010s | 7.9% | 4.6% | 3.2% | Central African Republic |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, Central African Republic or Zimbabwe?
- Central African Republic, at 7.9% against 6.6% in Zimbabwe as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between Central African Republic and Zimbabwe?
- 1.3%, with Central African Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Central African Republic and Zimbabwe?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Central African Republic and Zimbabwe rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- Central African Republic ranks 186th and Zimbabwe ranks 187th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for cost to enforce contracts benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.