Mauritania vs St. Kitts and Nevis: Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 methodology) - Score

Mauritania
65.99
in 2019
St. Kitts and Nevis
65.51
in 2019
Mauritania rank
48th
St. Kitts and Nevis rank
49th

Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 methodology) - Score over time

  • Mauritania
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
0204060201520172019

How they compare

Mauritania currently reports 65.99 against 65.51 in St. Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0.48.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was St. Kitts and Nevis ahead.

Mauritania ranks 48th and St. Kitts and Nevis ranks 49th of 188 countries.

St. Kitts and Nevis has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score, Mauritania or St. Kitts and Nevis?
Mauritania, at 65.99 against 65.51 in St. Kitts and Nevis as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score between Mauritania and St. Kitts and Nevis?
0.48, with Mauritania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritania and St. Kitts and Nevis?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Mauritania and St. Kitts and Nevis rank globally for enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score?
Mauritania ranks 48th and St. Kitts and Nevis ranks 49th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 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 (DB17-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The score for enforcing contracts is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through a local first-instance court, as well as the quality of judicial processes that promotes quality and efficiency in the court system. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.