Hong Kong vs Iceland: Enforcing contracts: Procedures

Hong Kong
26 number
in 2014
Iceland
27 number
in 2014
Hong Kong rank
174th
Iceland rank
171st

Enforcing contracts: Procedures over time

  • Hong Kong
  • Iceland
0102030200320082014

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 27 number against 26 number in Hong Kong, a difference of 1 number.

Across all 11 years both countries report, Iceland has been ahead every year.

Hong Kong ranks 174th and Iceland ranks 171st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong Iceland Difference Ahead
2000s 27 number 27 number 0 number
2010s 26.6 number 27 number 0.4 number Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures, Hong Kong or Iceland?
Iceland, at 27 number against 26 number in Hong Kong as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures between Hong Kong and Iceland?
1 number, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Iceland?
11 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2014.
How do Hong Kong and Iceland rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures?
Hong Kong ranks 174th and Iceland 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.