Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Namibia
Namibia: Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) was 1.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Namibia, 2015–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB17-20 methodology.
Analysis
Namibia recorded 1.5 DB17-20 methodology for enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over five years.
That places Namibia 172nd out of 191 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the bottom quarter.
Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Namibia, year by year
| Year | DB17-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 1.5 DB17-20 methodology | — |
| 2016 | 1.5 DB17-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 1.5 DB17-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 1.5 DB17-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 1.5 DB17-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Namibia compared with similar countries
- Namibia's 1.5 DB17-20 methodology is below the median for lower middle income countries, which is 3 DB17-20 methodology, 50% of the median. (47 countries reporting)
- Namibia's 1.5 DB17-20 methodology is below the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 3 DB17-20 methodology, 50% of the median. (48 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Namibia
- 172 Angola 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Czechia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Eritrea 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Finland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Gabon 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Iceland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Mongolia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Myanmar 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 San Marino 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 South Sudan 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 Suriname 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
- 172 East Timor 1.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Namibia
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0579 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 1.52 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 1.62 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0157 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 1.62 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.194 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.1306 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 6.29 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 6.82 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0853 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Namibia?
- Enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Namibia was 1.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) recorded in Namibia?
- The highest recorded value was 1.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
- What is the lowest enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) recorded in Namibia?
- The lowest recorded value was 1.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
- How does Namibia rank for enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5)?
- Namibia ranks 172nd out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this Namibia data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (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
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.