Kyrgyzstan vs United Arab Emirates: Resolving insolvency - Score

Kyrgyzstan
49.96
in 2019
United Arab Emirates
49.26
in 2019
Kyrgyzstan rank
76th
United Arab Emirates rank
78th

Resolving insolvency - Score over time

  • Kyrgyzstan
  • United Arab Emirates
01020304050200320112019

How they compare

Kyrgyzstan currently reports 49.96 against 49.26 in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.7.

The two have swapped places 7 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was United Arab Emirates ahead.

Kyrgyzstan ranks 76th and United Arab Emirates ranks 78th of 188 countries.

United Arab Emirates has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Kyrgyzstan United Arab Emirates Difference Ahead
2000s 39.26 39.65 0.3877 United Arab Emirates
2010s 41.81 43.27 1.46 United Arab Emirates

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher resolving insolvency - score, Kyrgyzstan or United Arab Emirates?
Kyrgyzstan, at 49.96 against 49.26 in United Arab Emirates as of 2019.
What is the difference in resolving insolvency - score between Kyrgyzstan and United Arab Emirates?
0.7, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kyrgyzstan and United Arab Emirates?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do Kyrgyzstan and United Arab Emirates rank globally for resolving insolvency - score?
Kyrgyzstan ranks 76th and United Arab Emirates ranks 78th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Resolving insolvency - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Resolving insolvency - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,083 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

The score for resolving insolvency is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the recovery rate of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities, as well as the strength of the legal framework applicable to judicial liquidation and reorganization proceedings.