Equatorial Guinea vs Eswatini: Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score

Equatorial Guinea
40.62
in 2014
Eswatini
40.62
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
109th
Eswatini rank
109th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eswatini
010203040200520092014

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 40.62 against 40.62 in Eswatini, a difference of 0.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Eswatini has been ahead every year.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 109th and Eswatini ranks 109th of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Eswatini Difference Ahead
2000s 40.62 40.62 0
2010s 40.62 40.62 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Eswatini?
Equatorial Guinea, at 40.62 against 40.62 in Eswatini as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Eswatini?
0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Eswatini?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Eswatini rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 109th and Eswatini ranks 109th 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.