Eswatini, Kingdom of vs Rwanda: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
Eswatini, Kingdom of
37.0%
in 2019
Rwanda
27.4%
in 2019
Eswatini, Kingdom of rank
175th
Rwanda rank
176th
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- Eswatini, Kingdom of
- Rwanda
How they compare
Eswatini, Kingdom of currently reports 37.0% against 27.4% in Rwanda, a difference of 9.6%.
That makes Eswatini, Kingdom of's figure about 1.3 times Rwanda's.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Eswatini, Kingdom of has been ahead every year.
Eswatini, Kingdom of ranks 175th and Rwanda ranks 176th of 190 countries.
Eswatini, Kingdom of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini, Kingdom of | Rwanda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 37.0% | 11.6% | 25.4% | Eswatini, Kingdom of |
| 2010s | 37.0% | 20.7% | 16.3% | Eswatini, Kingdom of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, Eswatini, Kingdom of or Rwanda?
- Eswatini, Kingdom of, at 37.0% against 27.4% in Rwanda as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between Eswatini, Kingdom of and Rwanda?
- 9.6%, with Eswatini, Kingdom of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini, Kingdom of and Rwanda?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Eswatini, Kingdom of and Rwanda rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- Eswatini, Kingdom of ranks 175th and Rwanda ranks 176th 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.