Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe, 2003–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe stood at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.
Over the whole period, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe peaked at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019 and was at its lowest, 0 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.
Zimbabwe ranks 89th of 191 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
The series is highly variable year to year, so single readings are best treated with caution.
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe, year by year
| Year | DB15-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2004 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2005 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2006 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2007 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2008 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2009 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2010 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2011 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2012 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2013 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2014 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2015 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2016 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2017 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2018 | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2019 | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | — |
Zimbabwe compared with similar countries
- Zimbabwe's 0.5 DB15-20 methodology is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 0.5 DB15-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (48 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 7 |
| 2010s | 0.05 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | 10 |
Countries ranked near Zimbabwe
- 89 Indonesia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Australia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Belarus 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Benin 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Burkina Faso 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Cameroon 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Central African Republic 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Chad 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Colombia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Comoros 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Congo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Cote d'Ivoire 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Dominican Republic 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Equatorial Guinea 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Gabon 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Guinea 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Guinea-Bissau 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Hungary 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Jordan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Laos 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Liberia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Lithuania 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Luxembourg 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Madagascar 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Malawi 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Malaysia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Mali 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Mauritius 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Mongolia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 New Zealand 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Niger 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Panama 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Peru 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Senegal 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Seychelles 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Singapore 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 South Africa 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 South Sudan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Sri Lanka 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Taiwan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Tajikistan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Togo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Uganda 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Ukraine 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 89 Uzbekistan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Zimbabwe
- Exchange rate, new LCU per USD extended backward, period average 58,959 (2026)
- Exchange rate, old LCU per USD extended forward, period average 58,959 (2026)
- Official exchange rate, LCU per USD, period average 58,959 (2026)
- Political opposition, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Elected parliament and government, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Global number of reported disasters by size, gaps filled 0 events (2024)
- Annual precipitation, annual growth rate 122.78 % change on previous year (2025)
- Free country, gaps filled 0 (2025)
- Civil liberties rating, gaps filled 5 (2025)
- Civil liberties rating, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe?
- Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Zimbabwe was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Zimbabwe?
- The highest recorded value was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019.
- What is the lowest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Zimbabwe?
- The lowest recorded value was 0 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- How does Zimbabwe rank for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Zimbabwe ranks 89th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this Zimbabwe 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
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.