Equatorial Guinea vs Iran: Enforcing contracts (DB04-15 methodology) - Score

Equatorial Guinea
63.23
in 2014
Iran
63.35
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
58th
Iran rank
57th

Enforcing contracts (DB04-15 methodology) - Score over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Iran
0204060200320082014

How they compare

Iran currently reports 63.35 against 63.23 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.12.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 58th and Iran ranks 57th of 181 countries.

Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Iran Difference Ahead
2000s 63.61 62.94 0.667 Equatorial Guinea
2010s 63.46 63.35 0.1072 Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts (db04-15 methodology) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Iran?
Iran, at 63.35 against 63.23 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts (db04-15 methodology) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Iran?
0.12, with Iran ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Iran?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Iran rank globally for enforcing contracts (db04-15 methodology) - score?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 58th and Iran ranks 57th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts (DB04-15 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts (DB04-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 2,113 data points, 2003–2014
Last refreshed

The score for enforcing contracts is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through a local first-instance court. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB04-15 studies.