Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Guinea-Bissau, 2015–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Guinea-Bissau stood at 1.5 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.
The figure is unchanged over five years.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 97th of 191 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Guinea-Bissau, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 1.5 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2016 | 1.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 1.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 1.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 1.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Guinea-Bissau compared with similar countries
- Guinea-Bissau's 1.5 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for low income countries, which is 0.75 DB16-20 methodology, 2.0× the median. (24 countries reporting)
- Guinea-Bissau's 1.5 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 1.5× the median. (48 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Guinea-Bissau
- 97 India 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Albania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Angola 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Belize 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Bolivia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Colombia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Cyprus 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Germany 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Guyana 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Palau 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Papua New Guinea 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Philippines 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Poland 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Solomon Islands 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Tanzania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Uganda 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Guinea-Bissau
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0583 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.3098 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.395 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0269 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.395 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.1955 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.2346 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 1.56 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 2.15 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1466 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Guinea-Bissau?
- Enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Guinea-Bissau was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Guinea-Bissau?
- The highest recorded value was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- What is the lowest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Guinea-Bissau?
- The lowest recorded value was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- How does Guinea-Bissau rank for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 97th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this Guinea-Bissau data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (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 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.