São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of vs Suriname: Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 methodology) - Score
Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 methodology) - Score over time
- São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of
- Suriname
How they compare
São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of currently reports 28.84 against 25.94 in Suriname, a difference of 2.9.
That makes São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of's figure about 1.1 times Suriname's.
Across all 5 years both countries report, São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of has been ahead every year.
São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of ranks 185th and Suriname ranks 188th of 190 countries.
São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score, São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of or Suriname?
- São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of, at 28.84 against 25.94 in Suriname as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score between São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of and Suriname?
- 2.9, with São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of and Suriname?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of and Suriname rank globally for enforcing contracts (db17-20 methodology) - score?
- São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of ranks 185th and Suriname ranks 188th of 190 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
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.