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
188
Highest
5 DB17-20 methodology
United Arab Emirates
Lowest
0 DB17-20 methodology
Iraq
Median
3 DB17-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
950

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology) is currently reported for 188 countries. The highest value is 5 DB17-20 methodology in United Arab Emirates; the lowest is 0 DB17-20 methodology in Iraq.

The median across all reporting countries is 3 DB17-20 methodology, and the mean is 3.29 DB17-20 methodology.

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 Zambia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
50 United States 4.4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
51 Nigeria 4.16 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
52 Brazil 4.08 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Burkina Faso 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Canada 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Guyana 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Haiti 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Kuwait 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Lebanon 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Liberia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Mozambique 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Malaysia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Oman 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Papua New Guinea 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Saudi Arabia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
53 Uganda 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
66 Mexico 3.75 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Albania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Armenia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Azerbaijan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Bulgaria 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Colombia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Denmark 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Dominican Republic 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Spain 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Estonia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Georgia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 South Korea 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Lithuania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Moldova 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Madagascar 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Mauritania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Nicaragua 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Norway 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Panama 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Philippines 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Palau 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Portugal 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Slovakia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Sweden 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Turkey 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 Venezuela 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
67 South Africa 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
67 Taiwan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Burundi 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Benin 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Bangladesh 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Bahrain 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
94 Barbados 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Brunei 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Central African Republic 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Chile 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Comoros 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Costa Rica 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Cyprus 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Algeria 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Fiji 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Ghana 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Greece 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Guatemala 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Honduras 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Hungary 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Indonesia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
94 Israel 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Italy 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Japan 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Kiribati 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Latvia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Marshall Islands 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Malta 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Netherlands 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Nepal 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 New Zealand 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
94 Puerto Rico 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Paraguay 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Russia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Senegal 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Solomon Islands 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 El Salvador 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Eswatini 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Seychelles 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
94 Togo 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Thailand 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Trinidad and Tobago 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Tanzania 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Vietnam 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Vanuatu 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Zimbabwe 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Belarus 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Belize 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Bhutan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
138 Botswana 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Cameroon 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Democratic Republic of Congo 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Congo 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Cape Verde 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Guinea 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Gambia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Kyrgyzstan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Maldives 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Mali 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Qatar 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Somalia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Tajikistan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Tonga 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Uzbekistan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
138 Samoa 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Afghanistan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Bolivia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
157 Ecuador 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
157 Egypt 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Jordan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Libya 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Pakistan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Palestine 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Sudan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Syria 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Uruguay 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
157 Yemen 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Angola 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Czechia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Eritrea 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Finland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Gabon 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Iceland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Myanmar 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Mongolia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Namibia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 San Marino 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 South Sudan 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 Suriname 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
169 East Timor 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
183 Micronesia (country) 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
183 Equatorial Guinea 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
183 Cambodia 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
183 Laos 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
187 Iran 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
188 Iraq 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat

Regions and income groups

Aggregates are excluded from the country ranking above so that a region can never outrank a country.

  • Kosovo 4.5 DB17-20 methodology

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
190 places, 950 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.