Republic of Moldova vs Viet Nam: Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score
Republic of Moldova
67.9%
in 2019
Viet Nam
67.5%
in 2019
Republic of Moldova rank
101st
Viet Nam rank
104th
Enforcing contracts: Cost (% of claim) - Score over time
- Republic of Moldova
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Republic of Moldova currently reports 67.9% against 67.5% in Viet Nam, a difference of 0.4%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Republic of Moldova ahead.
Republic of Moldova ranks 101st and Viet Nam ranks 104th of 191 countries.
Republic of Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Republic of Moldova | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80.7% | 65.6% | 15.1% | Republic of Moldova |
| 2010s | 68.8% | 67.6% | 1.2% | Republic of Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score, Republic of Moldova or Viet Nam?
- Republic of Moldova, at 67.9% against 67.5% in Viet Nam as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score between Republic of Moldova and Viet Nam?
- 0.4%, with Republic of Moldova ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Republic of Moldova and Viet Nam?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Republic of Moldova and Viet Nam rank globally for enforcing contracts: cost (% of claim) - score?
- Republic of Moldova ranks 101st and Viet Nam ranks 104th 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.