Micronesia (country) vs Sao Tome and Principe: Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 methodology) - Score

Micronesia (country)
29.39
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe
28.84
in 2019
Micronesia (country) rank
182nd
Sao Tome and Principe rank
183rd

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

  • Micronesia (country)
  • Sao Tome and Principe
0102030201520172019

How they compare

Micronesia (country) currently reports 29.39 against 28.84 in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0.55.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Sao Tome and Principe ahead.

Micronesia (country) ranks 182nd and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 183rd of 188 countries.

Micronesia (country) has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score, Micronesia (country) or Sao Tome and Principe?
Micronesia (country), at 29.39 against 28.84 in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score between Micronesia (country) and Sao Tome and Principe?
0.55, with Micronesia (country) ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia (country) and Sao Tome and Principe?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Micronesia (country) and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score?
Micronesia (country) ranks 182nd and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 183rd 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.