Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) in Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau: Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
0 DB17-20 methodology
World rank
118th
of 188 countries
All-time high
0 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
All-time low
0 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) in Guinea-Bissau, 2015–2019

00.20.40.60.812015201720192015: 0 DB17-20 methodology2016: 0 DB17-20 methodology2017: 0 DB17-20 methodology2018: 0 DB17-20 methodology2019: 0 DB17-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB17-20 methodology.

Analysis

Guinea-Bissau recorded 0 DB17-20 methodology for enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

Guinea-Bissau ranks 118th of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Guinea-Bissau

  1. 118 Nigeria 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  2. 118 Russia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  3. 118 Afghanistan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  4. 118 Algeria 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  5. 118 Angola 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  6. 118 Belarus 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  7. 118 Belgium 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  8. 118 Benin 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  9. 118 Bhutan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  10. 118 Bolivia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  11. 118 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  12. 118 Botswana 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  13. 118 Burkina Faso 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  14. 118 Burundi 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  15. 118 Cape Verde 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  16. 118 Cambodia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  17. 118 Cameroon 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  18. 118 Central African Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  19. 118 Chad 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  20. 118 Comoros 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  21. 118 Democratic Republic of Congo 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  22. 118 Congo 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  23. 118 Cote d'Ivoire 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  24. 118 Dominican Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  25. 118 Ecuador 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  26. 118 Egypt 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  27. 118 Equatorial Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  28. 118 Eritrea 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  29. 118 Ethiopia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  30. 118 Gabon 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  31. 118 Gambia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  32. 118 Ghana 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  33. 118 Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  34. 118 Guyana 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  35. 118 Haiti 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  36. 118 Honduras 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  37. 118 Iraq 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  38. 118 Kuwait 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  39. 118 Kyrgyzstan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  40. 118 Laos 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  41. 118 Lebanon 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  42. 118 Liberia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  43. 118 Libya 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  44. 118 Madagascar 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  45. 118 Mali 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  46. 118 Morocco 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  47. 118 Mozambique 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  48. 118 Myanmar 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  49. 118 Nepal 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  50. 118 Nicaragua 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  51. 118 Niger 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  52. 118 Oman 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  53. 118 Peru 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  54. 118 Philippines 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  55. 118 Qatar 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  56. 118 Sao Tome and Principe 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  57. 118 Senegal 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  58. 118 Sierra Leone 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  59. 118 Somalia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  60. 118 South Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  61. 118 Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  62. 118 Suriname 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  63. 118 Syria 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  64. 118 Tajikistan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  65. 118 Tanzania 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  66. 118 East Timor 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  67. 118 Togo 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  68. 118 Tunisia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  69. 118 Palestine 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  70. 118 Yemen 0 DB17-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Guinea-Bissau

All data for Guinea-Bissau →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) in Guinea-Bissau?
Enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) in Guinea-Bissau was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) recorded in Guinea-Bissau?
The highest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) recorded in Guinea-Bissau?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Guinea-Bissau rank for enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4)?
Guinea-Bissau ranks 118th out of 188 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: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 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: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The court automation evaluates four aspects: (i) whether the initial complaint can be filed electronically; (ii) whether the initial complaint can be served electronically; (iii) whether court fees can be paid electronically; and (iv) whether judgments rendered in commercial matters are made available to the public. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.