Republic of Korea vs United States of America: Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19)
Republic of Korea
80.56
in 2019
United States of America
81.11
in 2019
Republic of Korea rank
10th
United States of America rank
9th
Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) over time
- Republic of Korea
- United States of America
How they compare
United States of America currently reports 81.11 against 80.56 in Republic of Korea, a difference of 0.55.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Republic of Korea ahead.
Republic of Korea ranks 10th and United States of America ranks 9th of 191 countries.
Republic of Korea 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 (0-19), Republic of Korea or United States of America?
- United States of America, at 81.11 against 80.56 in Republic of Korea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) between Republic of Korea and United States of America?
- 0.55, with United States of America ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Republic of Korea and United States of America?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Republic of Korea and United States of America rank globally for enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19)?
- Republic of Korea ranks 10th and United States of America ranks 9th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) (DB17-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for quality of judicial processes index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.