Namibia vs Zambia: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)

Namibia
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Zambia
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Namibia rank
133rd
Zambia rank
133rd

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time

  • Namibia
  • Zambia
00.20.40.60.81200320112019

How they compare

Namibia currently reports 0 DB15-20 methodology against 0 DB15-20 methodology in Zambia, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.

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

Namibia ranks 133rd and Zambia ranks 133rd of 188 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Namibia Zambia Difference Ahead
2000s 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology
2010s 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Namibia or Zambia?
Namibia, at 0 DB15-20 methodology against 0 DB15-20 methodology in Zambia as of 2019.
What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Namibia and Zambia?
0 DB15-20 methodology, with Namibia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and Zambia?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do Namibia and Zambia rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
Namibia ranks 133rd and Zambia ranks 133rd 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.