Madagascar vs Mozambique: Enforcing contracts (DB04-15 methodology) - Score

Madagascar
49.21
in 2014
Mozambique
48
in 2014
Madagascar rank
131st
Mozambique rank
134th

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

  • Madagascar
  • Mozambique
01020304050200320082014

How they compare

Madagascar currently reports 49.21 against 48 in Mozambique, a difference of 1.21.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 12 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Madagascar ahead.

Madagascar ranks 131st and Mozambique ranks 134th of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Madagascar averaged higher in 1 and Mozambique in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Madagascar Mozambique Difference Ahead
2000s 45.91 45.49 0.4224 Madagascar
2010s 46.57 48 1.43 Mozambique

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts (db04-15 methodology) - score, Madagascar or Mozambique?
Madagascar, at 49.21 against 48 in Mozambique as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts (db04-15 methodology) - score between Madagascar and Mozambique?
1.21, with Madagascar ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Madagascar and Mozambique?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Madagascar and Mozambique rank globally for enforcing contracts (db04-15 methodology) - score?
Madagascar ranks 131st and Mozambique ranks 134th 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.