Indonesia vs Solomon Islands: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
Indonesia
21.1%
in 2019
Solomon Islands
11.4%
in 2019
Indonesia rank
182nd
Solomon Islands rank
183rd
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- Indonesia
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
Indonesia currently reports 21.1% against 11.4% in Solomon Islands, a difference of 9.7%.
That makes Indonesia's figure about 1.9 times Solomon Islands's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Solomon Islands ahead.
Indonesia ranks 182nd and Solomon Islands ranks 183rd of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Indonesia averaged higher in 1 and Solomon Islands in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Indonesia | Solomon Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.0% | 11.4% | 11.4% | Solomon Islands |
| 2010s | 14.8% | 11.4% | 3.4% | Indonesia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, Indonesia or Solomon Islands?
- Indonesia, at 21.1% against 11.4% in Solomon Islands as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between Indonesia and Solomon Islands?
- 9.7%, with Indonesia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Indonesia and Solomon Islands?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Indonesia and Solomon Islands rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- Indonesia ranks 182nd and Solomon Islands ranks 183rd 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.