Hong Kong, China vs Netherlands: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
Hong Kong, China
73.6%
in 2019
Netherlands
73.2%
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
65th
Netherlands rank
67th
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Netherlands
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 73.6% against 73.2% in Netherlands, a difference of 0.4%.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Hong Kong, China has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 65th and Netherlands ranks 67th of 191 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Netherlands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 73.6% | 72.7% | 0.9% | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 73.6% | 73.2% | 0.4% | Hong Kong, China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, Hong Kong, China or Netherlands?
- Hong Kong, China, at 73.6% against 73.2% in Netherlands as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between Hong Kong, China and Netherlands?
- 0.4%, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Netherlands?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Netherlands rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 65th and Netherlands ranks 67th 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.