Regulatory Quality in South Africa
South Africa: Regulatory Quality was 0.1567 standard error in 2011. ▼ Falling
Regulatory Quality in South Africa, 1996–2011
Source: World Bank Institute. Measured in standard error.
Analysis
In 2011, regulatory quality in South Africa stood at 0.1567 standard error. That is the lowest value across all 13 years on record.
The figure is down 1.1% on the previous year and down 22.3% over ten years.
Over the whole period, regulatory quality in South Africa peaked at 0.2745 standard error in 1996 and was at its lowest, 0.1567 standard error, in 2011.
That places South Africa 53rd out of 53 countries with data for 2011, putting it in the bottom quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 13 years of available data.
Regulatory Quality in South Africa, year by year
| Year | standard error | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.2745 standard error | — |
| 1998 | 0.2285 standard error | -16.7% |
| 2000 | 0.2016 standard error | -11.8% |
| 2002 | 0.1923 standard error | -4.6% |
| 2003 | 0.1706 standard error | -11.3% |
| 2004 | 0.1679 standard error | -1.6% |
| 2005 | 0.1596 standard error | -4.9% |
| 2006 | 0.169 standard error | +5.9% |
| 2007 | 0.1678 standard error | -0.7% |
| 2008 | 0.1696 standard error | +1.1% |
| 2009 | 0.1581 standard error | -6.8% |
| 2010 | 0.1584 standard error | +0.2% |
| 2011 | 0.1567 standard error | -1.1% |
South Africa compared with similar countries
- South Africa's 0.1567 standard error is below the median for upper middle income countries, which is 0.1765 standard error, 89% of the median. (8 countries reporting)
- South Africa's 0.1567 standard error is below the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 0.1645 standard error, 95% of the median. (47 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0.2515 standard error | 0.2285 standard error | 0.2745 standard error | 2 |
| 2000s | 0.1729 standard error | 0.1581 standard error | 0.2016 standard error | 9 |
| 2010s | 0.1575 standard error | 0.1567 standard error | 0.1584 standard error | 2 |
More reference data data for South Africa
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.5111 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 8.71 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 13.63 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.7468 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 13.63 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 1.71 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 1.49 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 41.1 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 63.65 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 4.07 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is regulatory quality in South Africa?
- Regulatory quality in South Africa was 0.1567 standard error in 2011, according to World Bank Institute.
- What is the highest regulatory quality recorded in South Africa?
- The highest recorded value was 0.2745 standard error in 1996.
- What is the lowest regulatory quality recorded in South Africa?
- The lowest recorded value was 0.1567 standard error in 2011.
- How does South Africa rank for regulatory quality?
- South Africa ranks 53rd out of 53 countries with data for 2011.
- Is regulatory quality rising or falling in South Africa?
- Over the last ten years it is down 22.3%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this South Africa data come from?
- The figures come from World Bank Institute, published as part of Regulatory Quality (standard error). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 13 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
See definition GV.REGL.LA.ES. Inherent to all Governance Indicators is a margin of error, which might vary from country to country, normally attributable to two factors: (i) cross-country differences in the number of sources in which a country appears, and (ii) differences in the precision of the sources in which each country appears.