Cambodia vs Equatorial Guinea: Enforcing contracts: Time (days) - Score

Cambodia
70.25
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
70.9
in 2019
Cambodia rank
52nd
Equatorial Guinea rank
49th

Enforcing contracts: Time (days) - Score over time

  • Cambodia
  • Equatorial Guinea
020406080200320112019

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 70.9 against 70.25 in Cambodia, a difference of 0.65.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Cambodia ahead.

Cambodia ranks 52nd and Equatorial Guinea ranks 49th of 188 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Cambodia averaged higher in 1 and Equatorial Guinea in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cambodia Equatorial Guinea Difference Ahead
2000s 76.34 70.9 5.44 Cambodia
2010s 70.79 70.9 0.1147 Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: time (days) - score, Cambodia or Equatorial Guinea?
Equatorial Guinea, at 70.9 against 70.25 in Cambodia as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: time (days) - score between Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea?
0.65, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for enforcing contracts: time (days) - score?
Cambodia ranks 52nd and Equatorial Guinea ranks 49th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Time (days) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Time (days) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,083 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

The score for time to enforce contracts 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.