Maldives vs Saudi Arabia: Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score

Maldives
37.5
in 2014
Saudi Arabia
37.5
in 2014
Maldives rank
124th
Saudi Arabia rank
124th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Maldives
  • Saudi Arabia
010203040200320082014

How they compare

Maldives currently reports 37.5 against 37.5 in Saudi Arabia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 12 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Maldives ahead.

Maldives ranks 124th and Saudi Arabia ranks 124th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Maldives Saudi Arabia Difference Ahead
2000s 37.5 31.25 6.25 Maldives
2010s 37.5 35 2.5 Maldives

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score, Maldives or Saudi Arabia?
Maldives, at 37.5 against 37.5 in Saudi Arabia as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between Maldives and Saudi Arabia?
0, with Maldives ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Maldives and Saudi Arabia?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Maldives and Saudi Arabia rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
Maldives ranks 124th and Saudi Arabia ranks 124th 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.