Australia vs Singapore: Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18)
Australia
15.5 DB17-20 methodology
in 2019
Singapore
15.5 DB17-20 methodology
in 2019
Australia rank
4th
Singapore rank
4th
Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) over time
- Australia
- Singapore
How they compare
Australia currently reports 15.5 DB17-20 methodology against 15.5 DB17-20 methodology in Singapore, a difference of 0 DB17-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Australia ahead.
Australia ranks 4th and Singapore ranks 4th of 191 countries.
Australia 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 Singapore?
- Australia, at 15.5 DB17-20 methodology against 15.5 DB17-20 methodology in Singapore as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) between Australia and Singapore?
- 0 DB17-20 methodology, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Singapore?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Australia and Singapore rank globally for enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18)?
- Australia ranks 4th and Singapore ranks 4th 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.