Papua New Guinea vs Qatar: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4)
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Qatar
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Qatar, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Papua New Guinea ranks 87th and Qatar ranks 87th of 191 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Qatar | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4286 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5714 DB15-20 methodology | Papua New Guinea |
| 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), Papua New Guinea or Qatar?
- Papua New Guinea, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Qatar as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) between Papua New Guinea and Qatar?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Qatar?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Qatar rank globally for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 87th and Qatar 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.