Netherlands vs Rwanda: Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score

Netherlands
84.38
in 2014
Rwanda
93.75
in 2014
Netherlands rank
5th
Rwanda rank
3rd

Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Netherlands
  • Rwanda
020406080100200320082014

How they compare

Rwanda currently reports 93.75 against 84.38 in Netherlands, a difference of 9.37.

That makes Rwanda's figure about 1.1 times Netherlands's.

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

Netherlands ranks 5th and Rwanda ranks 3rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Netherlands Rwanda Difference Ahead
2000s 84.38 88.84 4.46 Rwanda
2010s 84.38 92.5 8.12 Rwanda

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score, Netherlands or Rwanda?
Rwanda, at 93.75 against 84.38 in Netherlands as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between Netherlands and Rwanda?
9.37, with Rwanda ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Netherlands and Rwanda?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Netherlands and Rwanda rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
Netherlands ranks 5th and Rwanda ranks 3rd 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.