Malawi vs South Sudan: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Malawi
- South Sudan
How they compare
Malawi currently reports 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in South Sudan, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, South Sudan has been ahead every year.
Malawi ranks 88th and South Sudan ranks 88th of 190 countries.
South Sudan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malawi | South Sudan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | β |
| 2010s | 0.15 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4 DB15-20 methodology | 0.25 DB15-20 methodology | South Sudan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Malawi or South Sudan?
- Malawi, at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in South Sudan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Malawi and South Sudan?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Malawi ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and South Sudan?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Malawi and South Sudan rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Malawi ranks 88th and South Sudan ranks 88th of 190 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
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.