Guatemala vs Moldova: Enforcing contracts: Procedures

Guatemala
31 number
in 2014
Moldova
31 number
in 2014
Guatemala rank
154th
Moldova rank
154th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures over time

  • Guatemala
  • Moldova
0102030200320082014

How they compare

Guatemala currently reports 31 number against 31 number in Moldova, a difference of 0 number.

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

Guatemala ranks 154th and Moldova ranks 154th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Guatemala Moldova Difference Ahead
2000s 31 number 30 number 1 number Guatemala
2010s 31 number 30.6 number 0.4 number Guatemala

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures, Guatemala or Moldova?
Guatemala, at 31 number against 31 number in Moldova as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures between Guatemala and Moldova?
0 number, with Guatemala ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Moldova?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Guatemala and Moldova rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures?
Guatemala ranks 154th and Moldova ranks 154th 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.