Papua New Guinea vs Trinidad and Tobago: Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score
Papua New Guinea
34.38
in 2014
Trinidad and Tobago
34.38
in 2014
Papua New Guinea rank
133rd
Trinidad and Tobago rank
133rd
Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number) - Score over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 34.38 against 34.38 in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Trinidad and Tobago has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 133rd and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 133rd of 183 countries.
Trinidad and Tobago has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 31.88 | 34.38 | 2.5 | Trinidad and Tobago |
| 2010s | 34.38 | 34.38 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score, Papua New Guinea or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Papua New Guinea, at 34.38 against 34.38 in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2014.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score between Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures (number) - score?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 133rd and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 133rd of 183 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
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.