Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Hong Kong, China
Hong Kong, China: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Hong Kong, China, 2003–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.
Analysis
Hong Kong, China recorded 1 DB15-20 methodology for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) 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: creditor participation index (0-4) in Hong Kong, China peaked at 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 1 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.
That places Hong Kong, China 86th out of 190 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Hong Kong, China, year by year
| Year | DB15-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2004 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2005 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2006 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 1 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 7 |
| 2010s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 10 |
Countries ranked near Hong Kong, China
- 86 India 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Nigeria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Japan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Algeria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Antigua and Barbuda 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Argentina 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Armenia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Bahamas 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Bahrain 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Benin 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Bhutan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Brunei Darussalam 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Burkina Faso 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Burundi 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Cameroon 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Central African Republic 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Chad 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Comoros 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Congo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Costa Rica 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Côte d'Ivoire 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Cyprus 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Ecuador 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Equatorial Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Eritrea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Eswatini 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Ethiopia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 France 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Gabon 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Greece 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Guinea-Bissau 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Haiti 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Honduras 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Iraq 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Ireland 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Jordan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Republic of Korea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Kuwait 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Lesotho 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Liberia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Libya 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Lithuania 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Luxembourg 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Madagascar 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Malawi 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Mali 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Malta 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Montenegro 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Namibia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Niger 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Oman 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Papua New Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Qatar 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Samoa 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Senegal 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Sierra Leone 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Singapore 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Slovenia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Solomon Islands 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 South Sudan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Spain 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Sri Lanka 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Syrian Arab Republic 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Tajikistan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Tanzania, United Republic of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Togo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Tonga 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Tunisia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Uganda 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 United Arab Emirates 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Vanuatu 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Viet Nam 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Palestine, State of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 86 Yemen 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Hong Kong, China
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture 1.38 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.0347 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0052 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - Enteric 6.8 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.0056 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - Burning - Crop 0 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure applied to Soils 1.05 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Burning - Crop residues 0 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0 (1990)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management 0.1704 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Hong Kong, China?
- Resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Hong Kong, China was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) recorded in Hong Kong, China?
- The highest recorded value was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- What is the lowest resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) recorded in Hong Kong, China?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- How does Hong Kong, China rank for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 86th out of 190 countries with data for 2019.
- Is resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) rising or falling in Hong Kong, China?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Hong Kong, China data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) (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 creditor participation index has four components: (i) whether creditors appoint the insolvency representative or approve, ratify or reject the appointment of the insolvency representative; (ii) Whether creditors are required to approve the sale of substantial assets of the debtor in the course of insolvency proceedings; (iii) Whether an individual creditor has the right to access financial information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings; and (iv) Whether an individual creditor can object to a decision of the court or of the insolvency representative to approve or reject claims against the debtor brought by the creditor itself and by other creditors.