Poland vs Thailand: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Poland
- Thailand
How they compare
Poland currently reports 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Thailand, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Thailand ahead.
Poland ranks 1st and Thailand ranks 1st of 188 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Poland averaged higher in 1 and Thailand in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Poland | Thailand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.21 DB15-20 methodology | 2.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0.2857 DB15-20 methodology | Thailand |
| 2010s | 2.7 DB15-20 methodology | 2.65 DB15-20 methodology | 0.05 DB15-20 methodology | Poland |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Poland or Thailand?
- Poland, at 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Thailand as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Poland and Thailand?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Poland ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Poland and Thailand?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Poland and Thailand rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Poland ranks 1st and Thailand 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
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.