Denmark vs Mauritania, Islamic Republic of: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
Denmark
73.9%
in 2019
Mauritania, Islamic Republic of
74.0%
in 2019
Denmark rank
62nd
Mauritania, Islamic Republic of rank
59th
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- Denmark
- Mauritania, Islamic Republic of
How they compare
Mauritania, Islamic Republic of currently reports 74.0% against 73.9% in Denmark, a difference of 0.1%.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Mauritania, Islamic Republic of has been ahead every year.
Denmark ranks 62nd and Mauritania, Islamic Republic of ranks 59th of 190 countries.
Mauritania, Islamic Republic of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | Mauritania, Islamic Republic of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 73.5% | 74.0% | 0.5% | Mauritania, Islamic Republic of |
| 2010s | 73.9% | 74.0% | 0.1% | Mauritania, Islamic Republic of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, Denmark or Mauritania, Islamic Republic of?
- Mauritania, Islamic Republic of, at 74.0% against 73.9% in Denmark as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between Denmark and Mauritania, Islamic Republic of?
- 0.1%, with Mauritania, Islamic Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Mauritania, Islamic Republic of?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Denmark and Mauritania, Islamic Republic of rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- Denmark ranks 62nd and Mauritania, Islamic Republic of ranks 59th 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.