Republic of Korea vs Papua New Guinea: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4)
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) over time
- Republic of Korea
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Republic of Korea currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Papua New Guinea has been ahead every year.
Republic of Korea ranks 87th and Papua New Guinea ranks 87th of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Republic of Korea | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2010s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4), Republic of Korea or Papua New Guinea?
- Republic of Korea, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Papua New Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) between Republic of Korea and Papua New Guinea?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Republic of Korea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Republic of Korea and Papua New Guinea?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Republic of Korea and Papua New Guinea rank globally for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Republic of Korea ranks 87th and Papua New Guinea ranks 87th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The creditor participation index has four components: (i) whether creditors appoint the insolvency representative or approve, ratify or reject the appointment of the insolvency representative; (ii) Whether creditors are required to approve the sale of substantial assets of the debtor in the course of insolvency proceedings; (iii) Whether an individual creditor has the right to access financial information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings; and (iv) Whether an individual creditor can object to a decision of the court or of the insolvency representative to approve or reject claims against the debtor brought by the creditor itself and by other creditors.