Australia vs China: Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18)
Australia
15.5 DB17-20 methodology
in 2019
China
16.5 DB17-20 methodology
in 2019
Australia rank
4th
China rank
1st
Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) over time
- Australia
- China
How they compare
China currently reports 16.5 DB17-20 methodology against 15.5 DB17-20 methodology in Australia, a difference of 1 DB17-20 methodology.
That makes China's figure about 1.1 times Australia's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Australia ahead.
Australia ranks 4th and China ranks 1st of 191 countries.
China has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18), Australia or China?
- China, at 16.5 DB17-20 methodology against 15.5 DB17-20 methodology in Australia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) between Australia and China?
- 1 DB17-20 methodology, with China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and China?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Australia and China rank globally for enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18)?
- Australia ranks 4th and China ranks 1st of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) (DB17-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The quality of judicial processes index is the sum of the court structure and proceedings, case management, court automation and alternative dispute resolution. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.