Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Vietnam
Vietnam: Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▲ Rising
Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Vietnam, 2015–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Vietnam is 2.5 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.
That represents a change of up 25.0% over five years.
That places Vietnam 19th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.
Countries ranked near Vietnam
- 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 United States 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
More reference data data for Vietnam
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 3.68 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 4.24 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 16.73 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 1.89 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 16.73 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 12.35 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 18.98 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 23.56 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 93.83 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 10.27 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Vietnam?
- Enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) in Vietnam 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 Vietnam?
- The highest recorded value was 2.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2017.
- What is the lowest enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3) recorded in Vietnam?
- The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- How does Vietnam rank for enforcing contracts: alternative dispute resolution (0-3)?
- Vietnam ranks 19th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this Vietnam 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
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.