Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Papua New Guinea, 2015–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Papua New Guinea is 1.5 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over five years.
Papua New Guinea ranks 97th of 191 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Papua New Guinea, 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% |
Papua New Guinea compared with similar countries
- Papua New Guinea's 1.5 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for lower middle income countries, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 1.5× the median. (47 countries reporting)
- Papua New Guinea's 1.5 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for East Asia & Pacific, which is 1.5 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (28 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Papua New Guinea
- 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 Guinea-Bissau 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Guyana 1.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 97 Palau 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 Papua New Guinea
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.2042 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0498 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.3515 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0007 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.3515 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.6846 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.5295 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.2811 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 1.89 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0038 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Papua New Guinea?
- Enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Papua New Guinea 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 Papua New Guinea?
- The highest recorded value was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- What is the lowest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Papua New Guinea?
- The lowest recorded value was 1.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- How does Papua New Guinea rank for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 97th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this Papua New Guinea 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.