Austria vs Malaysia: Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18)
Austria
13 DB17-20 methodology
in 2019
Malaysia
13 DB17-20 methodology
in 2019
Austria rank
24th
Malaysia rank
24th
Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) over time
- Austria
- Malaysia
How they compare
Austria currently reports 13 DB17-20 methodology against 13 DB17-20 methodology in Malaysia, a difference of 0 DB17-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Malaysia has been ahead every year.
Austria ranks 24th and Malaysia ranks 24th of 191 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18), Austria or Malaysia?
- Austria, at 13 DB17-20 methodology against 13 DB17-20 methodology in Malaysia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18) between Austria and Malaysia?
- 0 DB17-20 methodology, with Austria ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Austria and Malaysia?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Austria and Malaysia rank globally for enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-18)?
- Austria ranks 24th and Malaysia ranks 24th 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.