Kenya vs Poland: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)

Kenya
3 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Poland
3 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Kenya rank
1st
Poland rank
1st

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time

  • Kenya
  • Poland
0123200320112019

How they compare

Kenya currently reports 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Poland, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.

Across all 17 years both countries report, Poland has been ahead every year.

Kenya ranks 1st and Poland ranks 1st of 188 countries.

Poland has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Kenya Poland Difference Ahead
2000s 0 DB15-20 methodology 2.21 DB15-20 methodology 2.21 DB15-20 methodology Poland
2010s 1 DB15-20 methodology 2.7 DB15-20 methodology 1.7 DB15-20 methodology Poland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Kenya or Poland?
Kenya, at 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Poland as of 2019.
What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Kenya and Poland?
0 DB15-20 methodology, with Kenya ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kenya and Poland?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do Kenya and Poland rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
Kenya ranks 1st and Poland ranks 1st of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology)
Unit
DB15-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,230 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

The reorganization proceedings index has three components: (i) whether the reorganization plan is voted on only by the creditors whose rights are modified or affected by the plan; (ii) whether creditors entitled to vote on the plan are divided into classes, each class votes separately and the creditors within each class are treated equally; and (iii) whether the insolvency framework requires that dissenting creditors receive as much under the reorganization plan as they would have received in liquidation.