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

Eswatini
40.62
in 2014
Guinea-Bissau
40.62
in 2014
Eswatini rank
109th
Guinea-Bissau rank
109th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Eswatini
  • Guinea-Bissau
010203040200520092014

How they compare

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

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Eswatini ahead.

Eswatini ranks 109th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 109th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Guinea-Bissau Difference Ahead
2000s 40.62 37.5 3.12 Eswatini
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, Eswatini or Guinea-Bissau?
Eswatini, at 40.62 against 40.62 in Guinea-Bissau as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between Eswatini and Guinea-Bissau?
0, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Guinea-Bissau?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Eswatini and Guinea-Bissau rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
Eswatini ranks 109th and Guinea-Bissau 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.