How does United States rank for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3)?

United States ranks 19th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.

Where does this United States 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.

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in United States

Name: Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in United States
Creator: World Bank
License: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)

United States: Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

2.5 DB16-20 methodology

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

19th

of 188 countries

All-time high

2.5 DB16-20 methodology

in 2015

All-time low

2.5 DB16-20 methodology

in 2015

Years of data

2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in United States, 2015–2019

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

Analysis

United States 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.

That represents a change of unchanged over five years.

That places United States 19th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

Countries ranked near United States

19 India 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Indonesia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Nigeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mexico 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Russia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Japan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Algeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Angola 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Antigua and Barbuda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Australia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Austria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Barbados 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Belarus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Belgium 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Belize 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Benin 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bhutan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bolivia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bulgaria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Burkina Faso 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cambodia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cameroon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Central African Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Chad 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Colombia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Comoros 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Democratic Republic of Congo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Congo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Costa Rica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cote d'Ivoire 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Croatia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cyprus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Denmark 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Dominica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Dominican Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Ecuador 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 El Salvador 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Estonia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Finland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 France 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Gabon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Gambia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Georgia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Ghana 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Greece 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Guinea 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Honduras 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Hong Kong 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Iran 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Ireland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Jamaica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Kuwait 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Laos 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Lesotho 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Luxembourg 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Madagascar 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Malaysia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mali 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Malta 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Marshall Islands 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mauritania 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mauritius 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Moldova 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Morocco 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mozambique 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Nepal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Nicaragua 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Niger 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 North Macedonia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Norway 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Oman 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Panama 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Paraguay 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Peru 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Philippines 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Portugal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Rwanda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Samoa 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Senegal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Serbia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Singapore 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Slovenia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Solomon Islands 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 South Africa 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Sri Lanka 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saint Lucia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Sweden 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Switzerland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Thailand 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Togo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Trinidad and Tobago 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Turkey 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Uganda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Vietnam 2.5 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for United States

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 19.34 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 24.55 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 119.42 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 20.7 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 119.42 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 64.85 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 52.14 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 133.45 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 589.96 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 112.69 (2050)

All data for United States →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in United States?: Enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in United States 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 United States?: The highest recorded value was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) recorded in United States?: The lowest recorded value was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
How does United States rank for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3)?: United States ranks 19th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this United States 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).

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.