Myanmar vs South Sudan: Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5)
Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) over time
- Myanmar
- South Sudan
How they compare
Myanmar currently reports 1.5 DB17-20 methodology against 1.5 DB17-20 methodology in South Sudan, a difference of 0 DB17-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, South Sudan has been ahead every year.
Myanmar ranks 171st and South Sudan ranks 171st of 190 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5), Myanmar or South Sudan?
- Myanmar, at 1.5 DB17-20 methodology against 1.5 DB17-20 methodology in South Sudan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) between Myanmar and South Sudan?
- 0 DB17-20 methodology, with Myanmar ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Myanmar and South Sudan?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Myanmar and South Sudan rank globally for enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5)?
- Myanmar ranks 171st and South Sudan ranks 171st of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (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 structure and proceedings evaluates five aspects of the court system: (i) whether a specialized commercial court, division or section is available; (ii) whether a small claims court and/or simplified procedure for small claims is available; (iii) whether pretrial attachment of defendant's movable assets is available; (iv) whether new cases are assigned randomly and through an automated system to judges; and (v) whether a woman’s testimony in court carries the same evidentiary weight as that of a man's. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.