Australia vs Latvia: Enforcing contracts: Procedures
Enforcing contracts: Procedures over time
- Australia
- Latvia
How they compare
Australia currently reports 28 number against 27 number in Latvia, a difference of 1 number.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 12 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Latvia ahead.
Australia ranks 169th and Latvia ranks 171st of 181 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 28.43 number | 27.86 number | 0.5714 number | Australia |
| 2010s | 28 number | 27 number | 1 number | Australia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures, Australia or Latvia?
- Australia, at 28 number against 27 number in Latvia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures between Australia and Latvia?
- 1 number, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Latvia?
- 12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
- How do Australia and Latvia rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures?
- Australia ranks 169th and Latvia ranks 171st of 181 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The procedures to enforce contracts records the list of procedural steps compiled for each economy that traces the chronology of a commercial dispute before the relevant court. A procedure is defined as any interaction, required by law or commonly carried out in practice, between the parties or between them and the judge or court officer. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB04-15 studies.