Namibia vs Solomon Islands: Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)
Namibia
37.5
in 2019
Solomon Islands
37.5
in 2019
Namibia rank
132nd
Solomon Islands rank
132nd
Resolving insolvency: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) over time
- Namibia
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
Namibia currently reports 37.5 against 37.5 in Solomon Islands, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Namibia ahead.
Namibia ranks 132nd and Solomon Islands ranks 132nd of 190 countries.
Namibia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Namibia | Solomon Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 37.5 | 25 | 12.5 | Namibia |
| 2010s | 37.5 | 36.25 | 1.25 | Namibia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16), Namibia or Solomon Islands?
- Namibia, at 37.5 against 37.5 in Solomon Islands as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16) between Namibia and Solomon Islands?
- 0, with Namibia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and Solomon Islands?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Namibia and Solomon Islands rank globally for resolving insolvency: strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)?
- Namibia ranks 132nd and Solomon Islands ranks 132nd of 190 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.