Jordan vs Trinidad and Tobago: Resolving insolvency: Recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - Score
Jordan
29.37
in 2019
Trinidad and Tobago
28.14
in 2019
Jordan rank
123rd
Trinidad and Tobago rank
126th
Resolving insolvency: Recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - Score over time
- Jordan
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Jordan currently reports 29.37 against 28.14 in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 1.23.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Jordan ahead.
Jordan ranks 123rd and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 126th of 191 countries.
Jordan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Jordan | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 29.54 | 27.13 | 2.41 | Jordan |
| 2010s | 29.3 | 28.52 | 0.7773 | Jordan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - score, Jordan or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Jordan, at 29.37 against 28.14 in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - score between Jordan and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 1.23, with Jordan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Jordan and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for resolving insolvency: recovery rate (cents on the dollar) - score?
- Jordan ranks 123rd and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 126th 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.