Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

Countries reporting

188

Highest

3 DB16-20 methodology

Armenia

Lowest

0 DB16-20 methodology

East Timor

Median

2.5 DB16-20 methodology

Years covered

2015–2019

Data points

950

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 188 countries. The highest value is 3 DB16-20 methodology in Armenia; the lowest is 0 DB16-20 methodology in East Timor.

The median across all reporting countries is 2.5 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 2.28 DB16-20 methodology.

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3): full country ranking

#	Country	Latest	Year	10-year change	Trend
1	Armenia	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
1	Bangladesh	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Brazil	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
1	China	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Germany	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Spain	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Hungary	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Israel	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Italy	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Jordan	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Kazakhstan	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	South Korea	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Lithuania	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Latvia	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Poland	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Romania	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
1	Uzbekistan	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
1	Taiwan	3 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Angola	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Antigua and Barbuda	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Australia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Austria	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Belgium	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Benin	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Burkina Faso	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Bulgaria	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Belarus	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Belize	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Bolivia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Barbados	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Bhutan	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Central African Republic	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Switzerland	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Cote d'Ivoire	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Cameroon	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Democratic Republic of Congo	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Congo	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Colombia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Comoros	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Costa Rica	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Cyprus	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Dominica	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Denmark	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Dominican Republic	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Algeria	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Ecuador	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Estonia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Finland	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	France	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Gabon	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Georgia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Ghana	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Guinea	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Gambia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Guinea-Bissau	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Greece	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Hong Kong	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Honduras	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Croatia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Indonesia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	India	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Ireland	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Iran	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Jamaica	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Japan	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Cambodia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Saint Kitts and Nevis	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Kuwait	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Laos	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Saint Lucia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Sri Lanka	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Lesotho	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Luxembourg	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Morocco	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Moldova	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Madagascar	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Mexico	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Marshall Islands	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	North Macedonia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Mali	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Malta	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Mozambique	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Mauritania	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Mauritius	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Malaysia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Niger	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Nigeria	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Nicaragua	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Norway	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Nepal	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Oman	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Panama	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Peru	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Philippines	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Portugal	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Paraguay	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Russia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Rwanda	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Senegal	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Singapore	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Solomon Islands	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	El Salvador	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Serbia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Slovenia	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Sweden	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Chad	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Togo	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Thailand	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Trinidad and Tobago	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Turkey	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Uganda	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	United States	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	Vietnam	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
19	Samoa	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
19	South Africa	2.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Afghanistan	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	United Arab Emirates	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Argentina	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Bahrain	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Bahamas	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Bosnia and Herzegovina	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Brunei	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Botswana	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Canada	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Cape Verde	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Czechia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Egypt	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Fiji	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Micronesia (country)	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	United Kingdom	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Equatorial Guinea	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
117	Grenada	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Guatemala	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Guyana	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Haiti	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Iceland	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Kenya	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Lebanon	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
117	Libya	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Maldives	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Montenegro	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Mongolia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Namibia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	New Zealand	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Pakistan	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Papua New Guinea	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Puerto Rico	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Palestine	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Qatar	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Saudi Arabia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Sudan	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
117	Somalia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	South Sudan	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Suriname	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Slovakia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Eswatini	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Seychelles	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Syria	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Tajikistan	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Tunisia	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Uruguay	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Venezuela	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Vanuatu	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Yemen	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
117	Zimbabwe	2 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Albania	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Azerbaijan	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	volatile
167	Burundi	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Chile	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Eritrea	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Ethiopia	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Iraq	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Kyrgyzstan	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	rising
167	Kiribati	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Liberia	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Myanmar	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Malawi	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Netherlands	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Sierra Leone	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	San Marino	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Sao Tome and Principe	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Tanzania	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Ukraine	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
167	Zambia	1.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
186	Palau	1 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
187	Tonga	0.5 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat
188	East Timor	0 DB16-20 methodology	2019	—	flat

Regions and income groups

Aggregates are excluded from the country ranking above so that a region can never outrank a country.

Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology

About this data

Indicator: Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit: DB16-20 methodology
Source: World Bank
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

The alternative dispute resolution evaluates two aspects: (i) whether domestic commercial arbitration is regulated by law, all disputes can be submitted to arbitration and valid arbitration clauses are usually enforced by courts; and (ii) whether voluntary mediation and/or conciliation are a recognized way of resolving commercial disputes, they are regulated by law and there are financial incentives for parties to attempt mediation of conciliation. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.