Japan vs South Korea: Enforcing contracts: Procedures

Japan
32 number
in 2014
South Korea
32 number
in 2014
Japan rank
146th
South Korea rank
146th

Enforcing contracts: Procedures over time

  • Japan
  • South Korea
0102030200320082014

How they compare

Japan currently reports 32 number against 32 number in South Korea, a difference of 0 number.

Across all 12 years both countries report, South Korea has been ahead every year.

Japan ranks 146th and South Korea ranks 146th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Japan South Korea Difference Ahead
2000s 32 number 34 number 2 number South Korea
2010s 32 number 32.4 number 0.4 number South Korea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: procedures, Japan or South Korea?
Japan, at 32 number against 32 number in South Korea as of 2014.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: procedures between Japan and South Korea?
0 number, with Japan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Japan and South Korea?
12 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2014.
How do Japan and South Korea rank globally for enforcing contracts: procedures?
Japan ranks 146th and South Korea ranks 146th 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.