Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau: Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) was 47.22 in 2019. ▲ Rising

Latest (2019)
47.22
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
82nd
of 191 countries
All-time high
47.22
in 2018
All-time low
44.44
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau, 2015–2019

010203040502015201720192015: 44.42016: 44.42017: 44.42018: 47.22019: 47.2

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

In 2019, enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau stood at 47.22. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

That represents a change of up 6.3% over five years.

That places Guinea-Bissau 82nd out of 191 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau, year by year

Annual values for Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) (DB17-20 methodology) - Score in Guinea-Bissau, 2015 to 2019.
Year Value Change
2015 44.44
2016 44.44 +0.0%
2017 44.44 +0.0%
2018 47.22 +6.3%
2019 47.22 +0.0%

Countries ranked near Guinea-Bissau

  1. 81 Indonesia 49.39 compare
  2. 82 Finland 47.22 compare
  3. 82 Ireland 47.22 compare
  4. 82 Lesotho 47.22 compare
  5. 82 Luxembourg 47.22 compare
  6. 82 Mozambique 47.22 compare
  7. 82 Papua New Guinea 47.22 compare
  8. 82 South Africa 47.22 compare
  9. 82 Sri Lanka 47.22 compare
  10. 82 Thailand 47.22 compare
  11. 82 Uganda 47.22 compare
  12. 82 Uzbekistan 47.22 compare

See the full ranking of 191 places →

More reference data data for Guinea-Bissau

All data for Guinea-Bissau →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau?
Enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau was 47.22 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) recorded in Guinea-Bissau?
The highest recorded value was 47.22 in 2018.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) recorded in Guinea-Bissau?
The lowest recorded value was 44.44 in 2015.
How does Guinea-Bissau rank for enforcing contracts: quality of the judicial processes index (0-19)?
Guinea-Bissau ranks 82nd out of 191 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: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) (DB17-20 methodology) - Score. 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).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau. Statizoid. Retrieved 26 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-quality-of-the-judicial-processes-index-0-19-db17-20-methodology-score/guinea-bissau/

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-quality-of-the-judicial-processes-index-0-19-db17-20-methodology-score/guinea-bissau/">Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) in Guinea-Bissau</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Quality of the judicial processes index (0-19) (DB17-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 955 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The score for quality of judicial processes index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.