Statizoid

Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Namibia

Namibia: Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
3 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 188 countries
All-time high
3 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
All-time low
3 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Namibia, 2003–2019

01232003201120192003: 3 DB15-20 methodology2004: 3 DB15-20 methodology2005: 3 DB15-20 methodology2006: 3 DB15-20 methodology2007: 3 DB15-20 methodology2008: 3 DB15-20 methodology2009: 3 DB15-20 methodology2010: 3 DB15-20 methodology2011: 3 DB15-20 methodology2012: 3 DB15-20 methodology2013: 3 DB15-20 methodology2014: 3 DB15-20 methodology2015: 3 DB15-20 methodology2016: 3 DB15-20 methodology2017: 3 DB15-20 methodology2018: 3 DB15-20 methodology2019: 3 DB15-20 methodology

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

Analysis

Namibia recorded 3 DB15-20 methodology for resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

Over the whole period, resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Namibia peaked at 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 3 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Namibia 1st out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 3 DB15-20 methodology 3 DB15-20 methodology 3 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 3 DB15-20 methodology 3 DB15-20 methodology 3 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Namibia

  1. 1 China 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 Indonesia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 United States 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 Japan 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Albania 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 Algeria 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Azerbaijan 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Botswana 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Brunei 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Cambodia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Colombia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Costa Rica 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Croatia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Cyprus 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Denmark 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Djibouti 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Eswatini 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Finland 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 France 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Gambia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Germany 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Ireland 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Israel 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Italy 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Kazakhstan 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Kenya 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Kyrgyzstan 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 Lesotho 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Malawi 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Malaysia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 Mauritius 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Morocco 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 New Zealand 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 North Macedonia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Poland 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Portugal 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Puerto Rico 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Rwanda 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Saudi Arabia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 Singapore 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 Slovakia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Spain 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 Sweden 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Switzerland 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 Tanzania 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Turkey 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 United Kingdom 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 Zambia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 Zimbabwe 3 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Namibia

All data for Namibia →

Frequently asked questions

What is resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Namibia?
Resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Namibia was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Namibia?
The highest recorded value was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
What is the lowest resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Namibia?
The lowest recorded value was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Namibia rank for resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3)?
Namibia ranks 1st out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) rising or falling in Namibia?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Namibia data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Resolving insolvency: Commencement of 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
Resolving insolvency: Commencement of 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 commencement of proceedings index has three components: (i) whether debtors can initiate both liquidation and reorganization proceedings; (ii) whether creditors can initiate both liquidation and reorganization proceedings; and (iii) what standard is used for commence­ment of insolvency proceedings.