Australia vs United Kingdom: Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score

Australia
78.12
in 2014
United Kingdom
75
in 2014
Australia rank
12th
United Kingdom rank
14th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Australia
  • United Kingdom
020406080200320082014

How they compare

Australia currently reports 78.12 against 75 in United Kingdom, a difference of 3.12.

Across all 12 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.

Australia ranks 12th and United Kingdom ranks 14th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia United Kingdom Difference Ahead
2000s 76.79 68.75 8.04 Australia
2010s 78.12 75 3.12 Australia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score, Australia or United Kingdom?
Australia, at 78.12 against 75 in United Kingdom as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between Australia and United Kingdom?
3.12, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and United Kingdom?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Australia and United Kingdom rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
Australia ranks 12th and United Kingdom ranks 14th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - 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 procedures to enforce contracts benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB04-15 studies.