Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo

Democratic Republic of Congo: Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▲ Rising

Latest (2019)
2.5 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
19th
of 191 countries
All-time high
2.5 DB16-20 methodology
in 2018
All-time low
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015–2019

00.511.522.52015201720192015: 2 DB16-20 methodology2016: 2 DB16-20 methodology2017: 2 DB16-20 methodology2018: 2.5 DB16-20 methodology2019: 2.5 DB16-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.

Analysis

Democratic Republic of Congo recorded 2.5 DB16-20 methodology for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

The figure is up 25.0% over five years.

That places Democratic Republic of Congo 19th out of 191 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo, year by year

Year DB16-20 methodology Change
2015 2 DB16-20 methodology —
2016 2 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2017 2 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2018 2.5 DB16-20 methodology +25.0%
2019 2.5 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%

Democratic Republic of Congo compared with similar countries

  • Democratic Republic of Congo's 2.5 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for low income countries, which is 2.25 DB16-20 methodology, 1.1× the median. (24 countries reporting)
  • Democratic Republic of Congo's 2.5 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 2.5 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (48 countries reporting)

Countries ranked near Democratic Republic of Congo

  1. 19 India 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 19 Indonesia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 19 Nigeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 19 United States 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 19 Mexico 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 19 Russia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 19 Japan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 19 Algeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 19 Angola 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 19 Antigua and Barbuda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 19 Australia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 19 Austria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 19 Barbados 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 19 Belarus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 19 Belgium 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 19 Belize 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 19 Benin 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 19 Bhutan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 19 Bolivia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 19 Bulgaria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 19 Burkina Faso 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 19 Cambodia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 19 Cameroon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 19 Central African Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 19 Chad 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 19 Colombia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 19 Comoros 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 19 Congo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 19 Costa Rica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 19 Cote d'Ivoire 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 19 Croatia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 19 Cyprus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 19 Denmark 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 19 Dominica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 19 Dominican Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 19 Ecuador 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 19 El Salvador 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 19 Estonia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 19 Finland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 19 France 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 19 Gabon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 19 Gambia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 19 Georgia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 19 Ghana 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 19 Greece 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 19 Guinea 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 19 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 19 Honduras 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 19 Hong Kong 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 19 Iran 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 19 Ireland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 19 Jamaica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 19 Kuwait 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 19 Laos 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 19 Lesotho 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 19 Luxembourg 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 19 Madagascar 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 19 Malaysia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 19 Mali 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 19 Malta 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 19 Marshall Islands 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 19 Mauritania 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 19 Mauritius 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 19 Moldova 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 19 Morocco 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 19 Mozambique 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 19 Nepal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 19 Nicaragua 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 19 Niger 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 19 North Macedonia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 19 Norway 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 19 Oman 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 19 Panama 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 19 Paraguay 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 19 Peru 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 19 Philippines 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 19 Portugal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 19 Rwanda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 19 Samoa 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 19 Senegal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 19 Serbia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 19 Singapore 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 19 Slovenia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 19 Solomon Islands 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 19 South Africa 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 19 Sri Lanka 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 19 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 19 Saint Lucia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 19 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 19 Sweden 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  91. 19 Switzerland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  92. 19 Thailand 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  93. 19 Togo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  94. 19 Trinidad and Tobago 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  95. 19 Turkey 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  96. 19 Uganda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
  97. 19 Vietnam 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 191 places →

More reference data data for Democratic Republic of Congo

All data for Democratic Republic of Congo →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo?
Enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) recorded in Democratic Republic of Congo?
The highest recorded value was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2018.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) recorded in Democratic Republic of Congo?
The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Democratic Republic of Congo rank for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3)?
Democratic Republic of Congo ranks 19th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Democratic Republic of Congo data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 5 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo. Statizoid. Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-alternative-dispute-resolution-0-3-db16-20-methodology/congo-dem-rep/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-alternative-dispute-resolution-0-3-db16-20-methodology/congo-dem-rep/">Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Democratic Republic of Congo</a> — Statizoid

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
191 places, 955 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

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.