Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology) by country

The court structure and proceedings evaluates five aspects of the court system: (i) whether a specialized commercial court, division or section is available; (ii) whether a small claims court and/or simplified procedure for small claims is available; (iii) whether pretrial attachment of defendant's movable assets...

Countries reporting
190
Highest
5 DB17-20 methodology
United Arab Emirates
Lowest
0.5 DB17-20 methodology
Iran
Median
3.25 DB17-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
955

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology) is currently reported for 190 countries. The highest value is 5 DB17-20 methodology in United Arab Emirates; the lowest is 0.5 DB17-20 methodology in Iran.

The median across all reporting countries is 3.25 DB17-20 methodology, and the mean is 3.32 DB17-20 methodology.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 10.

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 United Arab Emirates 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 China 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Croatia 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Kazakhstan 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Morocco 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 North Macedonia 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Montenegro 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Mauritius 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Poland 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Romania 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Serbia 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Ukraine 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
14 Argentina 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Antigua and Barbuda 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Australia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Austria 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Belgium 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Bahamas 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Switzerland 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Cote d'Ivoire 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
14 Germany 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Dominica 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Ethiopia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
14 France 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 United Kingdom 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Guinea-Bissau 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Grenada 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Hong Kong 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 India 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
14 Ireland 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Jamaica 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Kenya 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Saint Kitts and Nevis 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Saint Lucia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Sri Lanka 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Lesotho 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Luxembourg 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Malawi 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Niger 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
14 Peru 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Rwanda 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
14 Singapore 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Sierra Leone 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Slovenia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Chad 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Tunisia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Kosovo 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Zambia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
52 United States 4.4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Nigeria 4.16 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
54 Brazil 4.08 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Burkina Faso 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Canada 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Guyana 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Haiti 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Kuwait 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Lebanon 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Liberia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Mozambique 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Malaysia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Oman 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Papua New Guinea 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Saudi Arabia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Uganda 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
68 Mexico 3.75 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Albania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Armenia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Azerbaijan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Bulgaria 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Colombia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Denmark 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Dominican Republic 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Spain 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Estonia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Georgia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 South Korea 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Lithuania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Moldova 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Madagascar 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Mauritania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Nicaragua 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Norway 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Panama 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Philippines 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Palau 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Portugal 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Slovakia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Sweden 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Turkey 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Venezuela 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 South Africa 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
69 Taiwan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Burundi 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Benin 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Bangladesh 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Bahrain 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
96 Barbados 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Brunei 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Central African Republic 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Chile 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Comoros 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Costa Rica 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Cyprus 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Djibouti 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
96 Algeria 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Fiji 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Ghana 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Greece 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Guatemala 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Honduras 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Hungary 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Indonesia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
96 Israel 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Italy 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Japan 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Kiribati 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Latvia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Marshall Islands 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Malta 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Netherlands 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Nepal 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 New Zealand 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
96 Puerto Rico 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Paraguay 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Russia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Senegal 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Solomon Islands 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 El Salvador 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Eswatini 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Seychelles 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
96 Togo 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Thailand 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Trinidad and Tobago 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Tanzania 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Vietnam 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Vanuatu 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
96 Zimbabwe 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Belarus 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Belize 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Bhutan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
141 Botswana 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Cameroon 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Democratic Republic of Congo 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Congo 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Cape Verde 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Guinea 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Gambia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Kyrgyzstan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Maldives 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Mali 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Qatar 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Somalia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Tajikistan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Tonga 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Uzbekistan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
141 Samoa 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Afghanistan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Bolivia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
160 Ecuador 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
160 Egypt 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Jordan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Libya 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Pakistan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Palestine 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Sudan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Syria 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Uruguay 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Yemen 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Angola 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Czechia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Eritrea 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Finland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Gabon 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Iceland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Myanmar 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Mongolia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Namibia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 San Marino 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 South Sudan 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 Suriname 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
172 East Timor 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
186 Micronesia (country) 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
186 Equatorial Guinea 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
186 Cambodia 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
186 Laos 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
190 Iran 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 29 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-court-structure-and-proceedings-0-5-db17-20-methodology/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-court-structure-and-proceedings-0-5-db17-20-methodology/">Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) by country</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 955 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The court structure and proceedings evaluates five aspects of the court system: (i) whether a specialized commercial court, division or section is available; (ii) whether a small claims court and/or simplified procedure for small claims is available; (iii) whether pretrial attachment of defendant's movable assets is available; (iv) whether new cases are assigned randomly and through an automated system to judges; and (v) whether a woman’s testimony in court carries the same evidentiary weight as that of a man's. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.