Statizoid

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Tajikistan

Tajikistan: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▲ Rising

Latest (2019)
0.5 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
86th
of 188 countries
All-time high
0.5 DB15-20 methodology
in 2004
All-time low
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Tajikistan, 2003–2019

00.10.20.30.40.52003201120192003: 0 DB15-20 methodology2004: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2005: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2006: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2007: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2008: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2009: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2010: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2011: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2012: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2013: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2014: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2015: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2016: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2017: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2018: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2019: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.

Analysis

In 2019, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Tajikistan stood at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.

Over the whole period, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Tajikistan peaked at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2004 and was at its lowest, 0 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Tajikistan 86th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 17 years of available data.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 0.4286 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Tajikistan

  1. 86 Indonesia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 86 Australia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 86 Belarus 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 86 Benin 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 86 Burkina Faso 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 86 Cameroon 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 86 Central African Republic 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 86 Chad 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 86 Colombia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 86 Comoros 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 86 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 86 Congo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 86 Cote d'Ivoire 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 86 Dominican Republic 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 86 Equatorial Guinea 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 86 Gabon 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 86 Guinea 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 86 Guinea-Bissau 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 86 Hungary 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 86 Jordan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 86 Laos 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  22. 86 Liberia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  23. 86 Lithuania 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  24. 86 Luxembourg 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  25. 86 Madagascar 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  26. 86 Malawi 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  27. 86 Malaysia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  28. 86 Mali 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  29. 86 Mauritius 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  30. 86 Mongolia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  31. 86 New Zealand 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  32. 86 Niger 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  33. 86 Panama 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  34. 86 Peru 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  35. 86 Senegal 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  36. 86 Seychelles 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  37. 86 Singapore 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  38. 86 South Africa 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  39. 86 South Sudan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  40. 86 Sri Lanka 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  41. 86 Taiwan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  42. 86 Togo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  43. 86 Uganda 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  44. 86 Ukraine 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  45. 86 Uzbekistan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  46. 86 Zimbabwe 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Tajikistan

All data for Tajikistan →

Frequently asked questions

What is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Tajikistan?
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Tajikistan was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Tajikistan?
The highest recorded value was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2004.
What is the lowest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Tajikistan?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Tajikistan rank for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
Tajikistan ranks 86th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) rising or falling in Tajikistan?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
Where does this Tajikistan data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 17 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology)
Unit
DB15-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,230 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

The reorganization proceedings index has three components: (i) whether the reorganization plan is voted on only by the creditors whose rights are modified or affected by the plan; (ii) whether creditors entitled to vote on the plan are divided into classes, each class votes separately and the creditors within each class are treated equally; and (iii) whether the insolvency framework requires that dissenting creditors receive as much under the reorganization plan as they would have received in liquidation.