Dominican Republic vs Papua New Guinea: Enforcing contracts: Time (days) - Score
Dominican Republic
61.48
in 2019
Papua New Guinea
61.39
in 2019
Dominican Republic rank
100th
Papua New Guinea rank
101st
Enforcing contracts: Time (days) - Score over time
- Dominican Republic
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Dominican Republic currently reports 61.48 against 61.39 in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0.09.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Dominican Republic has been ahead every year.
Dominican Republic ranks 100th and Papua New Guinea ranks 101st of 188 countries.
Dominican Republic has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Dominican Republic | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 67.92 | 61.39 | 6.52 | Dominican Republic |
| 2010s | 63.61 | 61.39 | 2.21 | Dominican Republic |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: time (days) - score, Dominican Republic or Papua New Guinea?
- Dominican Republic, at 61.48 against 61.39 in Papua New Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: time (days) - score between Dominican Republic and Papua New Guinea?
- 0.09, with Dominican Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Dominican Republic and Papua New Guinea?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Dominican Republic and Papua New Guinea rank globally for enforcing contracts: time (days) - score?
- Dominican Republic ranks 100th and Papua New Guinea ranks 101st 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
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.