Latvia vs Republic of Moldova: Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)
Latvia
75
in 2019
Republic of Moldova
75
in 2019
Latvia rank
31st
Republic of Moldova rank
31st
Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) over time
- Latvia
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 75 against 75 in Republic of Moldova, a difference of 0.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Republic of Moldova has been ahead every year.
Latvia ranks 31st and Republic of Moldova ranks 31st of 191 countries.
Republic of Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 41.96 | 75 | 33.04 | Republic of Moldova |
| 2010s | 72.81 | 75 | 2.19 | Republic of Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16), Latvia or Republic of Moldova?
- Latvia, at 75 against 75 in Republic of Moldova as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) between Latvia and Republic of Moldova?
- 0, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Republic of Moldova?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Latvia and Republic of Moldova rank globally for resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)?
- Latvia ranks 31st and Republic of Moldova 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.