Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a...

Countries reporting
188
Highest
5.5 DB16-20 methodology
Australia
Lowest
0 DB16-20 methodology
Zambia
Median
1.75 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
950

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 188 countries. The highest value is 5.5 DB16-20 methodology in Australia; the lowest is 0 DB16-20 methodology in Zambia.

The median across all reporting countries is 1.75 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 2 DB16-20 methodology.

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Australia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 China 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Latvia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 United Kingdom 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
4 Greece 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Kazakhstan 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Namibia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Portugal 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
4 Rwanda 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Turkey 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
11 United States 4.7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Denmark 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
12 Israel 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Lithuania 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Singapore 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Serbia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Taiwan 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 United Arab Emirates 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Argentina 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Austria 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Brunei 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
18 Hungary 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Italy 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 South Korea 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Malta 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Malaysia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Norway 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
18 Romania 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Russia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Slovakia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
18 Sweden 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Chile 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Costa Rica 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
32 Estonia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Georgia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Croatia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 North Macedonia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — falling
32 Montenegro 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Puerto Rico 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
32 Paraguay 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
32 Saudi Arabia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
42 Mexico 3.34 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Armenia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Antigua and Barbuda 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Azerbaijan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
43 Bahrain 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
43 Brazil 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Bhutan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Cape Verde 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Czechia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Dominica 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 France 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Grenada 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Saint Kitts and Nevis 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Saint Lucia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Moldova 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Mauritius 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 New Zealand 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Slovenia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Ukraine 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Uruguay 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
63 Indonesia 2.78 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
64 Bulgaria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Belarus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Botswana 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Cote d'Ivoire 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
64 Spain 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Nigeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
64 Peru 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Ecuador 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
72 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Hong Kong 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Honduras 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
72 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Kenya 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Liberia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
72 Madagascar 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
72 Marshall Islands 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Malawi 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
72 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 El Salvador 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 Trinidad and Tobago 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
72 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Angola 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Albania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Belize 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Bolivia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
95 Colombia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Cyprus 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
95 Germany 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Guinea-Bissau 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Guyana 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
95 India 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
95 Philippines 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Palau 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Papua New Guinea 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Poland 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Solomon Islands 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Tanzania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
95 Uganda 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
113 Pakistan 1.15 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Afghanistan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Belgium 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Benin 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Burkina Faso 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Bangladesh 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Bahamas 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Barbados 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Switzerland 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Ethiopia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Micronesia (country) 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Iran 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Cambodia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Kiribati 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Kuwait 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Sri Lanka 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Lesotho 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Luxembourg 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Myanmar 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Mongolia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Mauritania 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
114 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Seychelles 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 East Timor 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
114 Vietnam 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Vanuatu 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
114 Zimbabwe 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Burundi 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Dominican Republic 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Equatorial Guinea 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Guatemala 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Haiti 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Lebanon 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Nicaragua 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Netherlands 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Nepal 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
150 Venezuela 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Central African Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Cameroon 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Congo 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Comoros 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Algeria 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Egypt 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Eritrea 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Gabon 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Gambia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Iraq 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Laos 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Libya 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Maldives 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Mali 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Palestine 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Qatar 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Sudan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Somalia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 South Sudan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Suriname 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Syria 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Chad 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Togo 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Tunisia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Samoa 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
161 Yemen 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
161 Zambia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile

Regions and income groups

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

  • Kosovo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (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

The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.