Denmark vs Switzerland: Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)
Denmark
75
in 2019
Switzerland
75
in 2019
Denmark rank
31st
Switzerland rank
31st
Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) over time
- Denmark
- Switzerland
How they compare
Denmark currently reports 75 against 75 in Switzerland, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Switzerland ahead.
Denmark ranks 31st and Switzerland ranks 31st of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Denmark averaged higher in 1 and Switzerland in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | Switzerland | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 62.5 | 68.75 | 6.25 | Switzerland |
| 2010s | 73.75 | 72.5 | 1.25 | Denmark |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16), Denmark or Switzerland?
- Denmark, at 75 against 75 in Switzerland as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) between Denmark and Switzerland?
- 0, with Denmark ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Switzerland?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Denmark and Switzerland rank globally for resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)?
- Denmark ranks 31st and Switzerland 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.