South Korea vs Switzerland: Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score

South Korea
65.62
in 2014
Switzerland
65.62
in 2014
South Korea rank
29th
Switzerland rank
29th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • South Korea
  • Switzerland
0204060200320082014

How they compare

South Korea currently reports 65.62 against 65.62 in Switzerland, a difference of 0.

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

South Korea ranks 29th and Switzerland ranks 29th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade South Korea Switzerland Difference Ahead
2000s 59.38 65.62 6.25 Switzerland
2010s 64.38 65.62 1.25 Switzerland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score, South Korea or Switzerland?
South Korea, at 65.62 against 65.62 in Switzerland as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between South Korea and Switzerland?
0, with South Korea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for South Korea and Switzerland?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do South Korea and Switzerland rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
South Korea ranks 29th and Switzerland ranks 29th 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.