Denmark vs Hong Kong, China: Resolving insolvency: Recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - Score
Denmark
95.27
in 2019
Hong Kong, China
93.85
in 2019
Denmark rank
7th
Hong Kong, China rank
9th
Resolving insolvency: Recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - Score over time
- Denmark
- Hong Kong, China
How they compare
Denmark currently reports 95.27 against 93.85 in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 1.42.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Denmark ranks 7th and Hong Kong, China ranks 9th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Denmark averaged higher in 1 and Hong Kong, China in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | Hong Kong, China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80.59 | 86.25 | 5.66 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 94.65 | 91.28 | 3.37 | Denmark |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - score, Denmark or Hong Kong, China?
- Denmark, at 95.27 against 93.85 in Hong Kong, China as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - score between Denmark and Hong Kong, China?
- 1.42, with Denmark ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Hong Kong, China?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Denmark and Hong Kong, China rank globally for resolving insolvency: recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - score?
- Denmark ranks 7th and Hong Kong, China ranks 9th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Resolving insolvency: Recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for recovery rate benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.