Australia vs Kazakhstan: Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4)
Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) over time
- Australia
- Kazakhstan
How they compare
Australia currently reports 3 DB17-20 methodology against 3 DB17-20 methodology in Kazakhstan, a difference of 0 DB17-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Australia ahead.
Australia ranks 13th and Kazakhstan ranks 13th of 190 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4), Australia or Kazakhstan?
- Australia, at 3 DB17-20 methodology against 3 DB17-20 methodology in Kazakhstan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) between Australia and Kazakhstan?
- 0 DB17-20 methodology, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Kazakhstan?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Australia and Kazakhstan rank globally for enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4)?
- Australia ranks 13th and Kazakhstan ranks 13th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The court automation evaluates four aspects: (i) whether the initial complaint can be filed electronically; (ii) whether the initial complaint can be served electronically; (iii) whether court fees can be paid electronically; and (iv) whether judgments rendered in commercial matters are made available to the public. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.