Botswana vs Latvia: Enforcing contracts: Procedures

Botswana
28 number
in 2014
Latvia
27 number
in 2014
Botswana rank
169th
Latvia rank
171st

Enforcing contracts: Procedures over time

  • Botswana
  • Latvia
0102030200320082014

How they compare

Botswana 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.

Botswana ranks 169th and Latvia ranks 171st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Botswana Latvia Difference Ahead
2000s 29 number 27.86 number 1.14 number Botswana
2010s 28.2 number 27 number 1.2 number Botswana

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures, Botswana or Latvia?
Botswana, at 28 number against 27 number in Latvia as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures between Botswana and Latvia?
1 number, with Botswana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Latvia?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Botswana and Latvia rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures?
Botswana 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

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Procedures (number)
Unit
number
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 2,113 data points, 2003–2014
Last refreshed

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.