China (People’s Republic of) vs Finland: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
China (People’s Republic of)
81.9%
in 2019
Finland
81.9%
in 2019
China (People’s Republic of) rank
16th
Finland rank
17th
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- China (People’s Republic of)
- Finland
How they compare
China (People’s Republic of) currently reports 81.9% against 81.9% in Finland, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was China (People’s Republic of) ahead.
China (People’s Republic of) ranks 16th and Finland ranks 17th of 190 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, China (People’s Republic of) averaged higher in 1 and Finland in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | China (People’s Republic of) | Finland | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 85.1% | 85.2% | 0.1% | Finland |
| 2010s | 82.3% | 82.2% | 0.1% | China (People’s Republic of) |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, China (People’s Republic of) or Finland?
- China (People’s Republic of), at 81.9% against 81.9% in Finland as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between China (People’s Republic of) and Finland?
- 0.0%, with China (People’s Republic of) ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for China (People’s Republic of) and Finland?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do China (People’s Republic of) and Finland rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- China (People’s Republic of) ranks 16th and Finland ranks 17th of 190 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.