Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
1 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
114th
of 188 countries
All-time high
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2015
All-time low
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Zimbabwe, 2015–2019

00.20.40.60.812015201720192015: 1 DB16-20 methodology2016: 1 DB16-20 methodology2017: 1 DB16-20 methodology2018: 1 DB16-20 methodology2019: 1 DB16-20 methodology

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

Analysis

Zimbabwe recorded 1 DB16-20 methodology for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

The figure is unchanged over five years.

That places Zimbabwe 114th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Zimbabwe

  1. 113 Pakistan 1.15 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 114 Bangladesh 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 114 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 114 Afghanistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 114 Bahamas 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 114 Barbados 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 114 Belgium 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 114 Benin 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 114 Burkina Faso 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 114 Cambodia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 114 Ethiopia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 114 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 114 Iran 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 114 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 114 Kiribati 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 114 Kuwait 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 114 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 114 Lesotho 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 114 Luxembourg 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 114 Mauritania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 114 Micronesia (country) 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 114 Mongolia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 114 Myanmar 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 114 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 114 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 114 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 114 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 114 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 114 Seychelles 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 114 Sri Lanka 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 114 Switzerland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 114 East Timor 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 114 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 114 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 114 Vanuatu 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 114 Vietnam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Zimbabwe

All data for Zimbabwe →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Zimbabwe?
Enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Zimbabwe was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Zimbabwe?
The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Zimbabwe?
The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Zimbabwe rank for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
Zimbabwe ranks 114th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Zimbabwe 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

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.