Chile vs Republic of Korea: Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)
Chile
75
in 2019
Republic of Korea
75
in 2019
Chile rank
31st
Republic of Korea rank
31st
Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) over time
- Chile
- Republic of Korea
How they compare
Chile currently reports 75 against 75 in Republic of Korea, a difference of 0.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Republic of Korea has been ahead every year.
Chile ranks 31st and Republic of Korea ranks 31st of 191 countries.
Republic of Korea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chile | Republic of Korea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 62.5 | 75 | 12.5 | Republic of Korea |
| 2010s | 68.75 | 75 | 6.25 | Republic of Korea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16), Chile or Republic of Korea?
- Chile, at 75 against 75 in Republic of Korea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) between Chile and Republic of Korea?
- 0, with Chile ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Republic of Korea?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Chile and Republic of Korea rank globally for resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)?
- Chile ranks 31st and Republic of Korea ranks 31st of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for strength of insolvency framework index 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.